Setting the record straight SCLR

[Blueboy]

And to further hi jack this thread, Blueboy, how long have you had your 109?

kellymoe - since 2001; it now has about 26k miles since then and has been in many places.

we're getting geared up for a trip to PEI this August.

and thx - we like it too and use it as intended.

Can you get a DWI if your operating a vehicle on private property?

probably in Indiana as there you can get a ticket for not wearing your seatbelt on your private land.

in rural W.PA. - they better have a better reason to come onto your land.


Jaime

 

[Blueboy]

Damn, this thread went lame fast.

it was lame from the beginning - except for seeing John once again here.


Jaime

 

[nosivad_bor]

kellymoe - since 2001; it now has about 26k miles since then and has been in many places.

we're getting geared up for a trip to PEI this August.

and thx - we like it too and use it as intended.



probably in Indiana as there you can get a ticket for not wearing your seatbelt on your private land.

in rural W.PA. - they better have a better reason to come onto your land.


Jaime

Fella's don't let Jaime fool you his Defender 109 is the hotness. I think I might have been there for its first offroad adventure??

 

[nwoods]

Whatever the reason for the thread editing and deleting, it was handled poorly. Nathan overstated and over stepped his authority to delete/edit posts on the board. Furthermore I remember him editing/deleting because of the tone of the post, not due to specific language (although some posts may have contained inappropriate language as well). I would also argue that if there is inappropriate language in a post then the language can be deleted, or a note from the webmaster that a post has been deleted due to language is the correct way to handle it, not just making a post or a thread disappear.

Aaron, I want to respond to this if you don't mind. The scale and scope of my moderator actions grows with each telling of the story, and it was over exaggerated even at the time! For clarification, here are the events as I recall them:

1. I never deleted any posts. Some posts were archived by moving them to the private BOD forum, but that action was not taken by me.
2. I never edited any posts related to this discussion. Editing means revising and rewriting to change the original. I never did that.
3. I did censor (by deletion, with an insert stating that I did so), direct references to two individuals that were considered to be personal attacks that were not pertinent to discussion of alcohol policy. One of the individuals threatened legal action in writing against the club if the comments about him (allegations demonstrated to be at least partially untrue by eyewitnesses) were not removed. By direction of the Club President, we moved swiftly to comply.
4. I never deleted, excised, omitted, or edited any comments related to me or about me or my actions. I only deleted the direct personal attacks on the two persons. I never felt the comments made about me were about my character as a person, they were only about actions taken by me, and I felt they were appropriate to remain in the threads.
5. I'm not sure what you mean that I overstated my authority, but the actions listed above were taken by me based on my understanding of the authority of a Moderator. Those duties are pretty well written out in the Roverboard policies. I didn't just "wing it" and make it up as I went. I had guidelines to follow and a duty to perform.
6. John Lee has stated that he asked Gerry Barrigan if I discussed taking moderator actions with him. I did not. Gerry has not ever responded to an email or message post that I can recall. He does not appear to follow them, or at least not in detail. There were literally hundreds of online and offline discussions about the issues, but Gerry may not read any of them. He spoke truthfully to John that he was not aware of any discussions about taking moderation actions on the thread. However, those discussions did happen with Hovik, John Gadd, and Buddy, who at that time, were the most active board members involved in the discussion. It was with their unilateral agreement that steps needed to be taken, so I did it.
7. The Club President physically shut down the Roverboard, not I. He wrote in a thread soon after it reopened that he took that unilateral action to implement a "cooling off period" so that everyone could take a step back and calm down and resume rational discussion instead of name calling and potentially further ensnaring SCLR into the threatened defamation(sp?) litigation. While I agreed with his action, I was not consulted nor part of the action to shut down the Roverboard.
8. There were TONS of emails and phone conversations that a large number of members sent to the Board members. Kevin's comment that the Board did not hear the members is extremely inaccurate. A tremendous number of hours was spent by Buddy in particular, and all the Board members to some degree, in conversations with the general membership, online and offline.
9. As a result of these discussions, the Roverboard issues, research into SCLR's insurance policy statements, and the receipt of the legal findings of fact from the attorney retained by the club president, the Board held a Special Meeting to discuss these factors and Vote on a policy. Those meeting minutes are posted in the Clubhouse for all members to read. They were promptly made available after the meeting, and their existence was made known and posted on the Roverboard.
10. Prior to this meeting, Kevin decided to resign his position on the Board. He stipulated at the time that it was for Personal reasons, and indicated that his work schedule was picking up and he didn't' have as much time available for the club. More recently, he has stated differently, and said it was due to the SCLR policy on Alcohol. This policy did not exist when he resigned. Kevin did not attend the meeting that set the Alcohol policy, and regrettably, never voted on the issue.
11. Prior to this meeting, in discussions with John Lee, Buddy suggested that John take the vacant spot. A the meeting, Buddy indicated to the Board that John was willing to accept the position. The Board discussed it, decided that there was no conflict with a vendor on the board (as several have served successfully in the past), and agreed to nominate him to the position. I think after the meeting there was some discussion about whether there should be an election instead of direct appointment, but John abdicated the position before we got that far and then we had a special election where Javier was voted into Office.
12. At that same meeting, the Roverboard moderation was discussed in detail. Some members of the Board challenged whether or not I was a moderator. I pointed out that I was given the Roverboard administrative duties by Randy Banis, prior to my being on the Board. The previous Club President was a participant to that action by Randy and backed it up. However, it was discussed that Administrative duties are not necessary moderator duties, and it was decided at the meeting to clearly define, and separate the tasks. To help calm the waters, non-board members are now the moderators, and I simply retained administrative duties, such as setting up accounts and keeping the site running. I have not performed any moderator actions since that meeting.
    

One further comment from me. There are scenarios outside of simple trail or camp use that can potentially involve alcohol. This would include club picnics, club meetings, dinners after trail runs, etc... In most peoples opinion, alcohol use is generally acceptable at these types of events/locations. If you have a drink at dinner on the way home from a trail, it stands to reason that you intend to keep driving soon after. That is legal, within limits. SCLR policy is broad enough to allow this right and yet keeps the responsibility with the individual, instead of with the club. Why does everyone think SCLR's policy allows alcohol on the trail? Clearly, drinking and driving are illegal, and SCLR policy states this and reinforces it.

The concern however, is that in a long caravan of trucks on a windy trail...like Nightmare or Doran, it's impossible for the trail leader to monitor everyone's actions. Many have stated on this forum that they like to hide their alcohol in cups, mugs, etc... If SCLR has a written 100% dry policy, and members violate this policy unbeknownst to the trail leader, and someone ends up killed or seriously hurt (like in a rollover), the two different attorneys we consulted both stated that SCLR becomes liable, because SCLR failed in it's duty to prevent alcohol consumption per it's policy.

By adopting the federal and state and land ownership laws to the SCLR policy, the individual becomes responsible for his/her actions, not the club. As a club, SCLR discourages alcohol use, but as posted here by others, it's nearly impossible to police and enforce.

It is with this understanding, after a great deal of discussion and thought, that the elected Board of Directors cast their votes and the current policy was implemented.

If those who continue to feel strongly about would like it reversed, they can run for office next cycle, assume the duties of the Board, and reverse/revise it however they wish. But you've got to participate to make that kind of change. Sitting on the sidelines wishing it was different is useless.

 

[kellymoe]

Aaron, I want to respond to this if you don't mind. The scale and scope of my moderator actions grows with each telling of the story, and it was over exaggerated even at the time! For clarification, here are the events as I recall them:

1. I never deleted any posts. Some posts were archived by moving them to the private BOD forum, but that action was not taken by me.
2. I never edited any posts related to this discussion. Editing means revising and rewriting to change the original. I never did that.
3. I did censor (by deletion, with an insert stating that I did so), direct references to two individuals that were considered to be personal attacks that were not pertinent to discussion of alcohol policy. One of the individuals threatened legal action in writing against the club if the comments about him (allegations demonstrated to be at least partially untrue by eyewitnesses) were not removed. By direction of the Club President, we moved swiftly to comply.
4. I never deleted, excised, omitted, or edited any comments related to me or about me or my actions. I only deleted the direct personal attacks on the two persons. I never felt the comments made about me were about my character as a person, they were only about actions taken by me, and I felt they were appropriate to remain in the threads.
5. I'm not sure what you mean that I overstated my authority, but the actions listed above were taken by me based on my understanding of the authority of a Moderator. Those duties are pretty well written out in the Roverboard policies. I didn't just "wing it" and make it up as I went. I had guidelines to follow and a duty to perform.
6. John Lee has stated that he asked Gerry Barrigan if I discussed taking moderator actions with him. I did not. Gerry has not ever responded to an email or message post that I can recall. He does not appear to follow them, or at least not in detail. There were literally hundreds of online and offline discussions about the issues, but Gerry may not read any of them. He spoke truthfully to John that he was not aware of any discussions about taking moderation actions on the thread. However, those discussions did happen with Hovik, John Gadd, and Buddy, who at that time, were the most active board members involved in the discussion. It was with their unilateral agreement that steps needed to be taken, so I did it.
7. The Club President physically shut down the Roverboard, not I. He wrote in a thread soon after it reopened that he took that unilateral action to implement a "cooling off period" so that everyone could take a step back and calm down and resume rational discussion instead of name calling and potentially further ensnaring SCLR into the threatened defamation(sp?) litigation. While I agreed with his action, I was not consulted nor part of the action to shut down the Roverboard.
8. There were TONS of emails and phone conversations that a large number of members sent to the Board members. Kevin's comment that the Board did not hear the members is extremely inaccurate. A tremendous number of hours was spent by Buddy in particular, and all the Board members to some degree, in conversations with the general membership, online and offline.
9. As a result of these discussions, the Roverboard issues, research into SCLR's insurance policy statements, and the receipt of the legal findings of fact from the attorney retained by the club president, the Board held a Special Meeting to discuss these factors and Vote on a policy. Those meeting minutes are posted in the Clubhouse for all members to read. They were promptly made available after the meeting, and their existence was made known and posted on the Roverboard.
10. Prior to this meeting, Kevin decided to resign his position on the Board. He stipulated at the time that it was for Personal reasons, and indicated that his work schedule was picking up and he didn't' have as much time available for the club. More recently, he has stated differently, and said it was due to the SCLR policy on Alcohol. This policy did not exist when he resigned. Kevin did not attend the meeting that set the Alcohol policy, and regrettably, never voted on the issue.
11. Prior to this meeting, in discussions with John Lee, Buddy suggested that John take the vacant spot. A the meeting, Buddy indicated to the Board that John was willing to accept the position. The Board discussed it, decided that there was no conflict with a vendor on the board (as several have served successfully in the past), and agreed to nominate him to the position. I think after the meeting there was some discussion about whether there should be an election instead of direct appointment, but John abdicated the position before we got that far and then we had a special election where Javier was voted into Office.
12. At that same meeting, the Roverboard moderation was discussed in detail. Some members of the Board challenged whether or not I was a moderator. I pointed out that I was given the Roverboard administrative duties by Randy Banis, prior to my being on the Board. The previous Club President was a participant to that action by Randy and backed it up. However, it was discussed that Administrative duties are not necessary moderator duties, and it was decided at the meeting to clearly define, and separate the tasks. To help calm the waters, non-board members are now the moderators, and I simply retained administrative duties, such as setting up accounts and keeping the site running. I have not performed any moderator actions since that meeting.
    

One further comment from me. There are scenarios outside of simple trail or camp use that can potentially involve alcohol. This would include club picnics, club meetings, dinners after trail runs, etc... In most peoples opinion, alcohol use is generally acceptable at these types of events/locations. If you have a drink at dinner on the way home from a trail, it stands to reason that you intend to keep driving soon after. That is legal, within limits. SCLR policy is broad enough to allow this right and yet keeps the responsibility with the individual, instead of with the club. Why does everyone think SCLR's policy allows alcohol on the trail? Clearly, drinking and driving are illegal, and SCLR policy states this and reinforces it.

The concern however, is that in a long caravan of trucks on a windy trail...like Nightmare or Doran, it's impossible for the trail leader to monitor everyone's actions. Many have stated on this forum that they like to hide their alcohol in cups, mugs, etc... If SCLR has a written 100% dry policy, and members violate this policy unbeknownst to the trail leader, and someone ends up killed or seriously hurt (like in a rollover), the two different attorneys we consulted both stated that SCLR becomes liable, because SCLR failed in it's duty to prevent alcohol consumption per it's policy.

By adopting the federal and state and land ownership laws to the SCLR policy, the individual becomes responsible for his/her actions, not the club. As a club, SCLR discourages alcohol use, but as posted here by others, it's nearly impossible to police and enforce.

It is with this understanding, after a great deal of discussion and thought, that the elected Board of Directors cast their votes and the current policy was implemented.

If those who continue to feel strongly about would like it reversed, they can run for office next cycle, assume the duties of the Board, and reverse/revise it however they wish. But you've got to participate to make that kind of change. Sitting on the sidelines wishing it was different is useless.

Nathan,

With a no alcohol on the trail policy the onus is placed on the members and not the trail leader. The policy is telling the members no alcohol, it's not telling the trail leader to police every driver. If the leader or any other member witnesses a violation it is then up to the leader to tell the offender to beat it. The leader cant possibly be a cop. The policy would just be there to send a clear uncluttered message that alcohol on the trail will not be tolerated.

And thanks for airing my reason for leaving (sarcastic tone). I dont think it was any mystery to anyone why I left. I just didnt want to make a big stink about it. And yes part of it was very personal and had nothing to do with SCLR. I wanted to keep the bleeding to a minimum. And from phone conversations with Buddy prior to the board meeting I was told what the lawyer had said and that was basically the way the vote would go. The vote should not be up to the BOD, it should be up to the members.

I still have hopes for the club. I dont think I'll ever be involved like I was before except for maybe leading a few trails now and then. There are a lot of good people in the club. Everyone just needs to mellow out and chillax, right Sinuhe

 

[nwoods]

kevin, for what its worth, I agree with your comments. My day job deals with construction litigation, so i have learned the sad reality that common sense is not a defensible position when it comes to lawyers duking it out. What Buddy's legal team demonstrated was that there was ample case law about clubs in similar circumstances lost every time. Its hard to overlook that. I hate what it says about our society, but we live in an era where burglars have sued home owners that dwfended themselves, and WON! Its sick, but its real.

About the resignation issue. I thought it was something you had posted on the Roverboard publicaly. I am truly sorry if that was not the case. Please accept my apollogies.

Maybe John Lee can provide some counterpoint or legal opinion on the matter, without breaking a law or statute or ethics issue somehow.

 

[traveltoad]

Nathan, moving threads or posts "to the private BOD forum" is arguably the same as deleting them. They are no longer available for the SCLR membership to view.

Censoring posts as being irrelevant to the discussion is not acceptable. That is exactly the problem, you tried to direct the conversation by eliminating posts that you deemed irrelevant. The original posting member felt that the post was relevant, you had no business deleting them. If you truly felt that the post was off topic you should have stated so in the thread for all to see.

I am glad that you reviewed the posts about you and that you did not feel that they required deletion. The fact that you even make this statement indicates to me that you were of a mind to edit or delete for reasons of content not language.

I call BS that member "threatened legal action in writing against the club" for a post that a member made. And even if a member did threaten such action, as stated on the SCLR board: "The Roverboard is generally unmonitored and the SCLR is not responsible for its content or links to pages. Use of the Roverboard is at your own risk." This is standard language on many (if not all) boards.

Were any members warned about posting these "personal attacks"?

The "direct personal attacks" were first hand accounts of inappropriate behavior by a member(s) on official SCLR runs. The fact that the SCLR BOD refused to take any action at all when the behavior was reported is another reason for my leaving the club. And the behavior reported was (is) related to a discussion on alcohol policy. Once alcohol is officially aloud during a run, when a member acts in a way the is rude or endangers others one must immediately ask if he (she) has been drinking and if the drinking is a contributing factor to the behavior.

The general opinion of the BOD seems to be that is you own a Land Rover and you have $60 that you have a right to be in the club. That whatever our differences because we all own Land Rovers we all must be tolerant of each other because we are family. I disagree. A Land Rover owner may have an interest in joining the club but being a Land Rover owner does not make them right for the club. Rather than focusing on getting more membership SCLR should focus on being a more cohesive, albeit smaller, group of Land Rover owners.

If a member acts in a way that other members feel in unacceptable or inappropriate, they should be able to call this person(s) out. A public (club) discussion needs to take place, either on the board or in a general meeting. The member in question may take some knocks. The club and/or the member may decide to part ways. So what?

 

[nwoods]

Aaron, it was not an SCLR member that we are talking about. I never said member, I said person.

I never moved or removed any posts. Yes, that action was taken, but not by me, and not at my request.

You and others have stated that the BOD never took any action on various topics. Just because you don't agree with an action taken, does not mean an action wasn't taken. Disciplinary actions do occur, and dealing with them is part of the Board's job.

If we want to talk specifics, the infamous "Pismo Incident" between Ho and Joe was something the Board did deal with. It was before my time on the Board, so I am not privy to all that occurred, but I know that an Administrative Review was conducted, I know that I was interviewed by members of the Board for my testimony (I was standing near by to Ho at the time of the incident), and I know that the Club President did get involved with Joe in some capacity, but I don't know the extent or the details. Nor do I need to.

What was occurring on the Roverboard at the time of the alcohol discussion was that The Pismo Incident was being tossed in as an example, in what appeared to be an attempt to get Joe kicked out the club. It was old business, that had been dealt with. You can't be punished twice for the same crime. It was a personal attack, unrelated to the alcohol thread. And I did state, several times, that it was an off topic item inappropriate for the thread.

I'm not going to say that my actions are peerless and above reproach. But I did act with the best intentions possible during a difficult situation. And ultimately, as an another indication of Board action, a new moderator policy was created as a result of it. The situation was dealt with. We learn, we grow, we move on. Nobody on the Board is a professional at these situations, they are just volunteers willing to try to make the club healthy.

Regarding your definition of a club, mine differs. Mine is broader. I like how Webster's defines it:
"An association of persons for the promotion of some common object, as literature, science, politics, good fellowship, etc.; esp. an association supported by equal assessments or contributions of the members"

This seems pretty consistent with SCLR's statement on their About Us page:
"The Southern California Land Rover club is a non-profit organization that promotes off-highway vehicle oriented outdoor recreation for all Land Rover enthusiasts."

Your definition goes beyond that. It deals with societal aspects. That happens naturally. In any larger group, there will be a subset up people that naturally gravitate to each other, for multiple reasons. That does not invalidate the function and purpose of the broader, larger group. A club is not an appropriate place to play "lifeboat" in my opinion.

As I see it, SCLR serves as a giant mixer. People new to the Land Rover community can join SCLR, participate, and meet people that they naturally gravitate towards. It provides a safe way for new members to explore the abilities of their truck and themselves, it introduces them to local trails and regions, it hopefully imparts a sense of land stewardship and responsible use, and provides a sense of community.

SCLR extends over 6,000 square miles of one of the most densely populated parts of the United States. Not everyone is going to get along, but it's existence and framework allows members to find others that they do get along with.

 

[p m]

Nathan,

why don't you guys bury the issue altogether?
Put it in writing that SCLR does not allow alcohol consumption on the trail, but SCLR officers or trail leaders are not tasked to enforce the policy, so it lays with the club members or trail run participants.

I still maintain that SCLR's issue is that of Rovers' prices hitting the dirt. It actually started way before, I'd say in RR04, when we were offered some dope at the dinner table on the opening night. The more square miles your club covers, the more white trash you're going to collect, along with their lifetime habits (not that I'm very different, but nonetheless).

 

[john]

John, please check you records. I was registered on your site.

You may have been registered. Every few months, I go through the registered users on our BBS and delete all of the user accounts with zero posts. I figure they're not participating in the discussions, so I delete their accounts. Your user account may have been one of those accounts.

I see you registered again. You're an EE customer so Ho approved your user account. You may now post on the EE BBS. Post away. I'm serious. Post away. Let's hear what you have to say.

Really. Swept under the rug. If that is true, why do you think I posted it here, on a BBS of this size?

Why did you post here? You said so at the very beginning of this thread:

I have decided to post here since EE will not let me post on their site to comment on an issue that seems to keep going over a year later. Also, many who view EE BBS also post and red here. It is truly unbelievable to me that this issue has been going on that long. Unfortunately, only one side of the story continues to get played.

I crack up that you posted here on DiscoWeb rather than on the SCLR site. Certainly, the SCLR board is the most logical place to post what you did. I'm not the only one who thinks so. You certainly have posting privileges on the SCLR board. But somehow, you thought the alcohol issue was too hot for TV on the SCLR site. You and the rest of the board of directors made your decision. You didn't want it discussed on the SCLR bulletin board. You may deny this all you like. Please do. But the truth is clear. Posting your reply on the SCLR board was out of the question for you. You couldn't post on the EE board. So you posted here on DiscoWeb. Again, deny it all you like. Please do.

Only after Matt Kendrick made you look like a fool for posting your comments here rather than on the SCLR board did you post a link to this thread on the SCLR BBS:

http://www.sclr.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=18652&nt=3&fpart=1

Your post there is funny:

I want to see this matter aired in the purest form. This is NOT to drum up old business. As it is clearly not gone. From normal conversations, it is still in many peoples' minds. Because this topic has strong opinions on each side, I felt the best forum for this was one that was neutral and had a broader set of rules.

You want to see the issue aired in the purest form? That's a joke. You're the one who authorized the deletion of each and every one of the several different threads on the alcohol issue from the SCLR site, and you now you realize that deleting the threads was a mistake and that the issue is not going to go away quietly, you claim that you want to see the alcohol issue aired in its purest form? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Before you posted this business about airing the alcohol question in its purest form, you wrote:

I truly hope this lays to rest the issue that SCLR supports drinking on the trail. It is actually quite to the contrary.

Which is it? Do you want the alcohol issue to be discussed on an open forum where discussions will not get edited and deleted? Or, do you want the issue laid to rest? First you're for latter. Then you're for the former. Which is it?

You post first--here on DiscoWeb--saying that you hope the issue is put to rest. Once you realized the issue was not going to die quietly and get laid to rest and that you posted on the wrong forum, you shift gears and contend that you're all for more discussions on the issue, and that you posted on DiscoWeb because it's a forum where posts are not edited or deleted.

You keep forgetting that DiscoWeb never forgets. Posts are not edited or deleted here. You're actually held to what you say. You can't talk out of both sides of your mouth here. You delete threads here and then later change your story. There is an actual record here. I know that you're accustomed to deleting threads and then changing your position later on, but you might reconsider such tactics here on DiscoWeb. That pathetic stuff works only on the SCLR board.

Please read this paragraph from your post.... Did I tell you not to? Have I ever asked you to stop? Did I ask you to remove it from your BBS?

No, you never asked me not to post publicly what my thoughts were on the SCLR board. You never asked me to stop. You never asked me to remove the record of the SCLR alcohol thread from the EE board.

You never did these things. That's not your style. Why ask me to stop when you know I'm not going to comply with your requests? And, furthermore, why ask me to stop when you have a far more effective tool at your disposal? You can just wait until I post and then edit my post. You can wait until I post and just delete the theads. That's what you did. And it works a hell of a lot better than asking me to stop.

Oh, wait, that's right. You didn't delete the threads. The threads aren't deleted. They still exist. They're just in the director-only portions of the SCLR board. And SCLR members can't read the director-only portions of the SCLR board. That's where the Board members discuss club business, and club members are not allowed to view such discussions. SCLR members don't need to know such matters.

I have never called you or anyone else names. I have always stated that I respected your opinion and decision. I have no problem with discussions. Discussions.

This is an interesting statement. Immediately prior to writing what you did immediately above, you quoted me:

Do you think I'm such a moron that I would allow myself to get into such an untenable position?

So now I'm not allowed even to call myself a moron? That's negative. Negative comments are not permitted. Negative comments must be purged.

Oh wait, this is DiscoWeb. Posts are not edited here. Posts are not purged here. I thought you wanted to see the alcohol discussions aired in their purest form. Or do you? Which is it?

The board position was open prior to the policy decision.

Yes, it was. The board position was open prior to the policy decision. That not only comports with what I wrote. It supports it. The board position was open. Kevin bailed on your board of directors. He didn't want to be associated with a board that condoned drinking on the trails. I can hardly blame him. Kevin bailed on the board of directors and that opened a spot on the board. You invited me to join the board. I told you that you didn't want me on your board. I told you that it's a conflict of interest for a vendor to be on the board. I told you that I would agree to be on the board, but only because I had made such a stink about the drinking on the trails that I felt I could not say no to being on the board. I did not choose to "run for the empty board position", as you wrote. I would have been on the board had I accepted the invitation. The invitation was to be on the board, not an invitation to run for a board position.

My side of the story is also supported by how things are done in almost all clubs. Is someone invited to run for a board position? Sure, it's out side the realm of possibility. But that doesn't quite jive, does it? If someone wants to run for a board position, then he doesn't have to be invited to run. He can simply choose to run.

Do you agree when people make negative comments about your business, your choice of vehicle, your choice of watches? Of course I do not agree with these negative comments. This is the very reason I started this thread.

No, I don't agree with these comments. You don't agree with them either, at least you say you don't.

But after that you and I part ways. I don't silence these negative comments. Rather, I post myself and tell them why they're wrong. You see, I actually practice what I preach. If somebody writes something that I disagree with, I don't edit his post to say what I think it should say. I don't delete his post to eliminate it all together. Rather, I post myself and tell him why I think he's wrong.

That's what you should do as well. But that's not what you've done. You've authorized the editing of posts. You've authorized the deletion of posts and entire threads. You've authorized the shutting down of an entire BBS.

I will go ahead and address the post deleting issue here. We removed the thread because it contained comments and language that is not permitted on the BBS. By editing posts, we were accused of editing content.
The noise makers were silenced? You have stated that comments continue in regards to this policy on other BBS's. Do you truly believe that the SCLR club members live such a sheltered life that they only look at the SCLR site?
The club's BBS will not tolerate personal attacks or foul language.

Yes, the "noise makers" as you call them were silenced. You silenced them. You edited the posts of the "noise makers" as you call them. All of the alcohol discussions on the SCLR board are now deleted. I can't even link to them. Poof. Gone. Abracadabra. Alacazam. Gone.

Now you claim that the "noise makers" as you call them have not truly been silenced, because "noise makers" as you call them are still free to post on other bulletin boards. This they did. They were no longer free to post their grievances on the SCLR board, so they posted on other boards.

Guess what happened after that? You posted here, saying that such "noise makers" were sitting behind their keyboards and taking pot shots at SCLR. Those are your words. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth again. On the one hand, you contend that the people who were against the club's alcohol policy are perfectly free to air their views on other bulletin boards. On the other hand, you contend that such people are "noise makers" who are sitting behind their keyboards and taking pot shots at the club.

Which is it?

Let me ask you; are you for real? At the annual club meeting, the issue was brought up. To my surprise, not a negative comment was issued. The "noise makers" were not there. If the overwhelming majority of the club did not like the policy, then why was there no one there to represent this?

Not a negative comment was issued? Maybe it was because negative comments are not permitted at SCLR?

The "noise makers" as you call them were not there? Could it be because they left the club?

That's why were no dissenting opinions at the meeting.

Exactly my reason for bringing this here. No one can claim that this is swept under the rug. No one can claim their post was edited or deleted because someone did not "like" it or "agree" with it. We can argue the issue here in the open.

Yeah, you posted here on DiscoWeb because you wanted the alcohol issue discussed further. Yeah, right. That's why you wrote:

I truly hope this lays to rest the issue that SCLR supports drinking on the trail. It is actually quite to the contrary.

Only after you realized that your post didn't lay to rest anything but only opened the door to even more discussions did you change your position into the fake "hey, let's discuss the question here openly" position you take now. Before you were Mr. Lay To Rest. That clearly didn't work. So now you're Mr. Let's Discuss This.

Take a step back and look at yourself in the mirror. Look at your position. Your current position is that you posted here on DiscoWeb because the alcohol issue can be discussed here freely without editing and without deleting. This is a very telling move. Not only because you've shifted gears from Mr. Lay To Rest to Mr. Let's Discuss This, but also because it shows that you know that such discussions will get edited and deleted on the SCLR board. The SCLR BBS is a joke. Nothing serious can be discussed there, because the SCLR BBS is all about patting one another's backs about how great the club is and how many new members we have and much money we have sitting the club treasury. So you post here. That's telling.

 

[discobuddy]

You've got me pegged. I also talk out of both ends of my body.
You know exactly why I brought this up again; to get beat up all over again.:banghead:
I just did not have enough drama in my life.
opcorn:

 

[CADisco]

If you want to drink and wheel, go on and take your life, and the life of your buddies, in your own hands and go out on your own.

For a period spanning nearly 30 years I have belonged to a variety of organized off-road clubs, serving as president a number of times. The purpose of haivng an organization is to bring structure to our sport. Structure insures people will have increased opportunity to get out and have fun, do so safely, include their families, and increase the likelyhood you'll return home with your rig and yourself in one piece to wheel another day. In all that time, I have never been part of any organized group that permitted drinking alcohol during the trail ride.

There is little I enjoy more than a few drinks and a good cigar with good friends. But I do it when the driving is finished for the day.

To condone drinking on the trail (even at lunch time) is just plain STUPID.

 

[kellymoe]

If you want to drink and wheel, go on and take your life, and the life of your buddies, in your own hands and go out on your own.

For a period spanning nearly 30 years I have belonged to a variety of organized off-road clubs, serving as president a number of times. The purpose of haivng an organization is to bring structure to our sport. Structure insures people will have increased opportunity to get out and have fun, do so safely, include their families, and increase the likelyhood you'll return home with your rig and yourself in one piece to wheel another day. In all that time, I have never been part of any organized group that permitted drinking alcohol during the trail ride.

There is little I enjoy more than a few drinks and a good cigar with good friends. But I do it when the driving is finished for the day.

To condone drinking on the trail (even at lunch time) is just plain STUPID.

This is what I would like to hear more of. People who are members of other clubs. I would like to hear their policy regarding this issue. I cant imagine that this issue has been that big an issue as it has been with SCLR. I have looked at several other 4x4 club websites and many have a dry trail policy. Drinks only in camp.

 

[ptschram]

might be a dumb question but here goes. Can you get a DWI if your operating a vehicle on private property?

Not to further hijack, but yes, in Indiana, you can be charged with DWI on private property and Sheriffs have been known to enter private property and arrest folks for among other lesser included offenses, DWI.

 

[ArmyRover]

Southern New Hampshire Land Rover Club, has no policy in regards to drinking and trail riding. It's simple we all know not to do it. Granted we are a new andsmall group less than 25 members. We just all have agreed that drinking stays at the camp fire/restaraunt at the end of the day.

 

[john]

The scale and scope of my moderator actions grows with each telling of the story, and it was over exaggerated even at the time! For clarification, here are the events as I recall them

As you recall them. Those are the key words. You seem to have a penchant for remembering only what you want to remember, and it's quite obvious you do it on purpose. I'll respond to what you wrote and you'll see where your recollection and my recollection differ. I regret that the alcohol threads have been deleted. They were a pretty good record of the events and their timing. I wish people could read them so that they could see for themselves if your recollection is accurate or not. Note that I'm all for resurrecting those threads. I want the record to be known. You don't. You want them buried because they're so damaging to your recollection. That single difference speaks volumes.

Here's a link to what's left of the original alcohol thread:

http://www.expeditionexchange.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1018

You already had a hand in what thread says because edited posts to reflect what you think they should have said. However, a little record is better than nothing at all. If you and Buddy Jones are agreeable, please bring back all of the alcohol discussions so that we can set the record straight. If you think those discussions are too hot for TV on the SCLR BBS (a ridiculous position), then I ask you to post the threads here on DiscoWeb. After all, Buddy is all for open discussion of the alcohol issue. Or at least he claims he is.

[1]I never deleted any posts. Some posts were archived by moving them to the private BOD forum, but that action was not taken by me.

You never deleted posts. You "achived" them? What kind of double-talk is that? This is sort of like "best interests of SCLR". It's chump talk. Archived. Those threads were the most action the SCLR bulletin board had seen in many years, and you and the rest of the Board of Directors saw fit to "archive" them? Nice. It's funny that you resort to euphemizing. Somehow, you know that what you did was wrong, so you resort to euphemizing.

I also love how your language changes as you write. Not only do you speak in euphemisms, but you switch from active to passive voice as you talk about different actions. Whenever you take what you think is an upstanding position, you speak in the active voice. Whenever you take what know is a questionable position, you change to the passive voice, to obfuscate whoever did the questionable conduct. You do this throughout your posts. It's hilarious. You didn't do it. It just happened. It's sort of like those people who have gun accidents. They tell the story and always end it with "the gun went off". They don't say they pulled the trigger. The gun just went off.

There is no deed without a doer. As basic as that sounds, I think you need to learn that. Posts just don't get edited. Someone edits them. Threads just don't get deleted. Someone deletes them.

You may not have deleted posts. I'm not sure, because the threads are "archived" now and I can't see what you did to them. But there's no question you edited posts to conform with your ideas of what is appropriate and what is not. I'm not sure editing is any better than deleting. In fact, I tend to thinking editing posts is worse than deleting. You obviously disagree.

[2]I never edited any posts related to this discussion. Editing means revising and rewriting to change the original. I never did that.

Editing means revising and rewriting to change the original. You never did that. Therefore, you never edited. Q.E.D.

Lovely. You try to define your way out of culpability for what you did? That's pathetic. Why are you touching others' posts at all? You have no business touching other people's posts. I'm not talking about obsenity. I'm not talking about spaming. I'm not talking about porn. I'm talking about SCLR members' comments about club policy and examples of violations of club policy. You saw fit to edit those comments. You can argue all you like that you never edited anything. This just shows how selective your recollection is.

[3]I did censor (by deletion, with an insert stating that I did so), direct references to two individuals that were considered to be personal attacks that were not pertinent to discussion of alcohol policy.

These two individuals you mention were Roger Davis and his wife.

I love how your language changes:

"I did censor" - active voice.

"were considered to be personal attacks" - passive voice. Considered by whom? By you.

Once again, we have more obfuscation by you. Who considered my post to be personal attacks? You did. Notice how you don't write "I did censor direct references to two individuals that I considered to be personal attacks." That "I" suddenly disappears from your sentence and turns into the nebulous passive voice in a pathetic attempt to hide what you did.

And I love the part about "were not pertinent to discussion of alcohol policy". Not pertinent? These two were drinking on Cottonwood. There are even photos of it. I still have the photos if you want to see them again. Not pertinent? You're kidding, right?

In what little is left of the original alcohol thread, there are two different versions of my original post. You edited my original post at least two different times, once on April 26th and another time on April 27th. You may have edited my post more than twice. I can't be sure because I don't have access to such records and the original thread is now "archived" anyway. But all of us know that you didn't edit any posts at all. Editing means revising and rewriting to change the original. You never did that.

One of the individuals threatened legal action in writing against the club if the comments about him (allegations demonstrated to be at least partially untrue by eyewitnesses) were not removed. By direction of the Club President, we moved swiftly to comply.

"One of the individuals" was Roger Davis. You should know his name because you're the one who contacted Roger and told him he was being discussed on the SCLR bulletin board. You're the one who asked Roger if he wanted references to him on the SCLR bulletin board to be deleted.

So, Roger Davis threatened legal action against SCLR? Yeah, that's credible. I find it interesting that Roger Davis threatened legal action against SCLR and demanded the allegations against him be removed from the SCLR website when he had no problem posting his side of the story on the EE bulletin board:


http://www.expeditionexchange.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14975&postcount=8


Roger Davis is not an EE customer and our BBS is open only to EE customers, but we made and exception and let him post anyway. We actually encouraged him to post.

And Roger Davis had no problem posting his side of the story on DiscoWeb:


http://www.discoweb.org/forums/showthread.php?t=35150


Roger Davis also has no qualms about accusing Ho of drunk driving at the National Rally:


http://www.discoweb.org/forums/showthread.php?t=39625


And yet Roger Davis' account of his drinking on Cottonwood was so sensitive that you saw fit to it that it was never published on the SCLR bulletin board. Here's what you posted on the SCLR BBS:

Posted by Nathan Woods (Member # 752) on April 27, 2007 02:43 PMApril 27, 2007 01:43 PM:

John, For the record, I advocated NOT removing the thread. I locked it because it had gotten off topic and the Board as a group needed to collect our thoughts, take a breathe, and then proceed.

I did not at all want the thread to stop, in fact, I encouraged you to keep it going, but I gave a warning that is still in effect and is consistent with what Buddy said earlier. Keep it on topic, or start another thread...and I'll add: keep it social.

As for Roger Davis, he did submit a formal complaint about your defamatory discussion of him that occurred on the SCLR forum. However, he did not request his letter to be reprinted to the public, and unless he does, it shall remain private.

We will comply with his requests and remove your comments about him.

So Roger had zero problem airing his side of the story on the EE BBS and on DiscoWeb, but he demanded all references to him on the SCLR BBS be "archived"? That's a joke. Why do I get the feeling that he sent the exact same wording to SCLR that he posted publicly on the EE BBS and on DiscoWeb? And yet the contents of his letter to SCLR were so sensitive that you decided not to publish them?

The truth is that you knew how patheticly weak Roger's defense was. His basic defense was that he didn't know it was wrong to drink on the trail. I encourage all to read Roger's defenses and see for themselves if I'm misconstruing Roger's defense. You knew that there were SCLR members on Cottonwood who would impeach what Roger Davis wrote. You knew posts on the SCLR BBS were inevitable. We preserved Roger's posts on the EE BBS. We didn't delete it and say we were deleting it because it so without merit that it was not even worth keeping it. That's your thing.

And you can call Roger's drinking on the trail "off topic" or "not related to the discussion" or "out of order" or whatever double-talk you like to use, but it was on topic. It was his drinking on Cottonwood that caused the discussion in the first place.

And Roger's story of his non-drinking on Cottonwood was so clearly and convincingly true that you and the remainder of the board of directors decided to "archive" all references to Roger's drinking on Cottonwood? You say these allegations were "demonstrated to be at least partially untrue by eyewitnesses". What does that mean? Do you know how many witnesses there are that saw Roger Davis and his wife drinking on Cottonwood? And there are PHOTOS of their drinking on the trail. Adam Spiker deleted those photos, but I have them saved. Do you want to see these photos again? And yet Roger's pathetic recounting is so clearly and convincingly true to that you saw fit to "archive" all references to him from the SCLR bulletin board.

And Roger Davis is Mr. Sensitive when it comes to photos of him and his wife drinking on the trails? Apparently, they have no such concerns for these pics being public on Off Roving's website:

http://offrovinggallery.offroving.com/images/A_6/8/0/3/13086/DSC_9895_6c7b2.JPG

(I think that's Roger Davis. I'm not sure though.)

Here, Mrs. Davis seems to love the cupholder function in the Disco:

http://offrovinggallery.offroving.com/images/A_6/8/0/3/13086/LRL_4699eunicegoggle_eeee0.jpg

And apparently, Roger Davis and his wife seem to have no problem at all with being on the trail with others who are drinking:

http://offrovinggallery.offroving.com/images/A_6/8/0/3/13086/LRL_2632_bf4e5.JPG

It looks like high noon. The perfect time for having a beer.

Is that Adam Spiker downing a Coors at lunch?:

http://offrovinggallery.offroving.com/images/A_6/8/0/3/13086/LRL_2742_673e4.JPG

Hey, we have a flat tire. Bust out the spare tire and hand me some Tecates:

http://offrovinggallery.offroving.com/images/A_6/8/0/3/13086/LRL_3112wheel_04f67.jpg

Here, someone enjoys a "coldy" at high noon:

http://offrovinggallery.offroving.com/images/A_6/8/0/3/13086/LRL_3367faces_e9e62.jpg

Is that Joe Nosal? I'm not sure.

Yeah, Roger Davis is such a sensitive fellow. The truth is that you're the one who fed him the defamation theory for getting those comments about him removed from the SCLR BBS. When Roger took your bait, you were only too happy to oblige. And you decided not to post Roger's excuse (the same ones he himself posted on the EE BBS and here on DiscoWeb) because you knew other SCLR members would post on the SCLR thread about how they witnessed Roger Davis drinking on Cottonwood.

(To all of you clicking on those pics immediately above, I highly recommend you save them to your hard drive. I doubt the pics will be up for long. Stuff disappears from the Off Roving site as frequently as stuff disappears from the SCLR site.)

[4]I never deleted, excised, omitted, or edited any comments related to me or about me or my actions. I only deleted the direct personal attacks on the two persons. I never felt the comments made about me were about my character as a person, they were only about actions taken by me, and I felt they were appropriate to remain in the threads.

You felt the criticisms against you were appropriate to remain in the threads? That's an interesting way of framing it. The truth is, you didn't even dare to remove the criticisms against you. You were already on thin ice about editing and deleting the criticisms against third parties. Had you deleted or edited my comments about you personally, you would have shown what a low-life you actually are.

You did, however, do all you could to stop the criticisms against you. You locked the thread. You locked the thread on the ground that it gotten off-topic. That's hilarious. When Buddy Jones unlocked the thread you must have been squirming. When Buddy Jones shut down the entire SCLR BBS after I started naming names, you must have breathed a huge sigh of relief.

[5]I'm not sure what you mean that I overstated my authority, but the actions listed above were taken by me based on my understanding of the authority of a Moderator. Those duties are pretty well written out in the Roverboard policies. I didn't just "wing it" and make it up as I went. I had guidelines to follow and a duty to perform.

"ased on your understanding". Those are the key words. I don't deny that you acted based on your own understanding (however unreasonable that understanding was). So now you claim that you didn't exceed your capacity as an SCLR BBS moderator.

The record is quite different from your selective recall. The first time the SCLR board of directors met to discuss your actions, the board of directors took away your "moderating" powers. Do you remember that? The board of directors took away your moderating powers. You exceeded your authority as a moderator of the SCLR BBS. So the board of directors took away your powers. (More on this below.)

[6]John Lee has stated that he asked Gerry Barrigan if I discussed taking moderator actions with him. I did not. Gerry has not ever responded to an email or message post that I can recall. He does not appear to follow them, or at least not in detail. There were literally hundreds of online and offline discussions about the issues, but Gerry may not read any of them. He spoke truthfully to John that he was not aware of any discussions about taking moderation actions on the thread. However, those discussions did happen with Hovik, John Gadd, and Buddy, who at that time, were the most active board members involved in the discussion. It was with their unilateral agreement that steps needed to be taken, so I did it.

I never said that I asked Gerry Barrgan if you discussed moderator actions with Gerry. Rather, I said that Gerry Barragan told me that you never had such powers. His words to me were "Nathan doesn't have such powers; nobody does".

Jim Lupinetti told me the same thing. Nobody does.

Buddy Jones told me that you don't such such powers either. Buddy told me he ordered you to step away from the keyboard, that you're personally involved in the discussions, and it looks really bad for the club when you're editing and deleting posts when you're personally involved like that.

When you wrote on the SCLR BBS that you were acting with the authority of the board of directors when you were doing what what you were doing, that's when I replied to the contrary. I started naming names. I said that Gerry, Jim, and Buddy told me that you lacked such powers. I then asked for you to name names. Who on the board of directors agreed with you that you could edit and delete members' postings like that? That's when the SCLR BBS went TILT like some pinball machine. It was hilarious.

Now we know that John Gadd agreed with you about editing and deleting members' postings. That says a lot.

You mention Hovik and say that he agreed with you. I highly doubt that. I doubt Hovik would agree with you on anything. I don't want to speak for Hovik, but I think it's a safe bet that Hovik hates your guts. Who do you think engineered your getting booted from the SCLR board of directors in the first place? Who in the club has that kind of pull with the other members of the board of directors? Think about that.

[7]The Club President physically shut down the Roverboard, not I. He wrote in a thread soon after it reopened that he took that unilateral action to implement a "cooling off period" so that everyone could take a step back and calm down and resume rational discussion instead of name calling and potentially further ensnaring SCLR into the threatened defamation(sp?) litigation. While I agreed with his action, I was not consulted nor part of the action to shut down the Roverboard.

Further ensnaring SCLR into the threatened defamation litigation? What defamation action? The one you dreamed up? Again, Roger had zero problem posting his side of the story on DiscoWeb and the EE BBS. And you claim that he was Mr. Sensitive with regard to the SCLR BBS? He story was so sensitive that he asked to have his letter kept private? And his story was so clear and convincing that you deemed that all references to Roger Davis' drinking on Cottonwood should be "archived".

The truth is that you're the one who fed Roger the idea that he could sue the club for defamation. Remember, you're the one who erroneously believes that defamation is any statement that is negative, regardless of whether or not it's true.

[9]As a result of these discussions, the Roverboard issues, research into SCLR's insurance policy statements, and the receipt of the legal findings of fact from the attorney retained by the club president, the Board held a Special Meeting to discuss these factors and Vote on a policy. Those meeting minutes are posted in the Clubhouse for all members to read. They were promptly made available after the meeting, and their existence was made known and posted on the Roverboard.

Don't try to take the High Road here and contend that the board of directors has been forthcoming. Far from it. Getting information from the board of directors has been like pulling teeth.

The minutes from the board of directors' meeting are posted? That's one way of framing it. Why are they posted now? Only because I requested them. I requested them in public, on the SCLR BBS after the board of directors announced its decision. The board could hardly say no after I made a stink about it. The truth is that the board of directors never intended to publish those minutes. Those minutes never even existed until I requested them.

What really happened was that the board of directors made its decision, in a closed meeting. SCLR members were not permitted to attend this meeting. Then, the board of directors announced its decision to condone drinking of alcohol on the trails by club members on club functions.

It was only after I asked that the minutes from the meeting be published that someone on the board of directors put together some minutes and published them. When I saw these minutes, I was floored. They weren't even minutes. They were more like milliseconds. They were so cursory. I'd link to the minutes but I no longer have access to them. These minutes were a joke. They should have been written in crayon. They didn't list which board member voted which way. They just stated that the board of directors voted and the result. A total joke.

Then, I posted on the SCLR BBS again, asking for a breakdown of the votes. I'd link to that thread too but surprise surprise that thread is now gone. It's been "archived". I asked for a breakdown of the voting. Which board members voted which way? Uh oh. The board of directors went back into closed-door mode to discuss it. Should the board of directors even disclose which members voted which way? I can't believe this was even a question.

I distinctly remember Bill Ruttan posting something to the effect of "I have no opposition to revealing how I voted". That's very telling. Why would he? He's a member of the board of directors. He's elected by the club members. How he votes isn't some secret. It should be known to all of the members how he votes on club matters. The same is true for all of the members of the board of directors. And not only the votes. The discussions the board of directors has on club matters should be made public. That's how it works. These discussions should be seen and hard by the members.

When the SCLR board of directors did announce how the board of directors voted, it was an exercise in equivocation. The votes were not broken down into yes or no. Rather, the votes were all listed as something like "Member X - favors dry trail runs but supports the policy adopted". What the hell does that mean? One either favors dry trail runs or not. He cannot favor dry trail runs and simultaneously favor a policy that condones drinking on the trails. Which is it?

[10]Prior to this meeting, Kevin decided to resign his position on the Board. He stipulated at the time that it was for Personal reasons, and indicated that his work schedule was picking up and he didn't' have as much time available for the club. More recently, he has stated differently, and said it was due to the SCLR policy on Alcohol. This policy did not exist when he resigned. Kevin did not attend the meeting that set the Alcohol policy, and regrettably, never voted on the issue.

Yes, Kevin resigned before the board of directors voted on the issue. At least Kevin resigned before the board of directors officially voted on the issue. However, the real vote had already taken place behind the scenes. Buddy even told Kevin that the board of directors would vote the way it would. That's why Kevin resigned. I wish Buddy had told me the same thing before he invited me to be a member of the board of directors. Had he me told me, I would not have accepted the invitation to be on the board of directors.

[11]Prior to this meeting, in discussions with John Lee, Buddy suggested that John take the vacant spot. A the meeting, Buddy indicated to the Board that John was willing to accept the position. The Board discussed it, decided that there was no conflict with a vendor on the board (as several have served successfully in the past), and agreed to nominate him to the position. I think after the meeting there was some discussion about whether there should be an election instead of direct appointment, but John abdicated the position before we got that far and then we had a special election where Javier was voted into Office.

Of course you guys see no conflict of interest with a vendor being on the SCLR board of directors. You guys just don't get it. You don't see how personal gain affects one's decision-making process. Everyone is susceptible to it. Everyone.

For example, you, Nathan, seem to have no problem being on the club's board of directors and also being associated with Off Roving. You have no problem pimping the Rover Specialties rock sliders to new and inexperienced club members and being on the club's board of directors and deciding club policy. You don't seem to have a problem that you, as a member of the board of directors, speak on behalf of SCLR and yet you're recommending products with which you're associated to new members. If the question should ever come up that perhaps SCLR should abandon the entire policy of having club sponsors because money shouldn't have a part in deciding club issues, you are more likely to vote with a no than with a yes.

[12]At that same meeting, the Roverboard moderation was discussed in detail. Some members of the Board challenged whether or not I was a moderator. I pointed out that I was given the Roverboard administrative duties by Randy Banis, prior to my being on the Board. The previous Club President was a participant to that action by Randy and backed it up. However, it was discussed that Administrative duties are not necessary moderator duties, and it was decided at the meeting to clearly define, and separate the tasks. To help calm the waters, non-board members are now the moderators, and I simply retained administrative duties, such as setting up accounts and keeping the site running. I have not performed any moderator actions since that meeting.

It was discussed. It was decided. Lovely.

You have not performed any moderator actions since that meeting. That much is true.

Do you know why you have not performed any moderator actions since that meeting? Because the board of directors took away those powers from you. The board of directors more than discussed the issue. The board of directors more than decided to separate administrative duties from moderator duties. That's your selective recall again. The board of directors stripped you of your moderator duties. Why? Because you exceeded all reasonable bounds of what a moderator does or may do. You couldn't control yourself, even after Buddy Jones asked you step back from the keyboard because you were personally involved. So the board of directors took away your moderator powers. It really is that simple.

Perhaps you don't remember this. Perhaps the truth is too brutal for you to recall. Do you remember what went down at the meeting? Do you remember the board of directors admonishing you for your abuses of power? Do you remember what you said in response when the board of directors took away your powers? Do you remember squealing like a stuck pig and giving your ultimatum that you would quit the club if the board of directors did not "back you up" on your editing and deleting of club members' posts? Do you remember when you got up and huffed out of the building and nobody said anything in your defense? You're very lucky Gerry Barragan felt sorry for you and went outside and brought you back into the meeting. I only wish Gerry didn't feel sorry for you and let you walk out of the club on that day. That would have been hilarious.

You claim that people who left the club because of the club's condoning the drinking of alcohol on the trails during club rubs are whiners. And yet you're the one who walked out of the club because the board of directors wouldn't "back you up" and stripped you of your moderator powers. Which is worse? Who is the bigger whiner?

Yes, the board the directors did damage control for you and claims that the moderator duties were simply moved to other persons. You can claim that's what really happened. Sure, go ahead, for that's in line with how SCLR does things. But you know and I know and several other people know that you were stripped of your moderator powers because you clearly abused them and you threatened to leave the club because of it. You may claim that your editing of others' posts was with the authority of the SCLR board of directors, but history shows otherwise.

 

[john]

You've got me pegged. I also talk out of both ends of my body.
You know exactly why I brought this up again; to get beat up all over again.:banghead:
I just did not have enough drama in my life.
opcorn:

Yeah, I got you pegged all right.

The reality is that you screwed up. You posted on DiscoWeb thinking that you "lay to rest" the alcohol question. But the result is quite the opposite of your intended goal.

Even Joe Nosal can see that. He take on the alcohol issue is that its' been decided so why open the door again? I don't agree with that position but it's funny that he saw something forthcoming that you didn't.

Randy Banis also saw it. His admonition to the SCLR membership is basically "don't read DiscoWeb". Again, I don't agree with that, but at least he saw what was coming.

But somehow you couldn't see what was coming. You thought you were putting to rest the alcohol question.

That's laughable.

 

[eric w siepmann]

Southern New Hampshire Land Rover Club, has no policy in regards to drinking and trail riding. It's simple we all know not to do it. Granted we are a new andsmall group less than 25 members. We just all have agreed that drinking stays at the camp fire/restaraunt at the end of the day.

That is pretty much how it was when I was active in the Chicago Land Rover Club. I highly doubt that this practice has changed either. Was/is it in the official bylaws? I do not know as I never looked. I can't imagine that something like drinking on trail would go unnoticed and left unattended. I would like to think that almost everyone on the ride would take you to task for your complete lack of common sense.

I still know most of the officers. And I can say with complete confidence that instead of engaging an attorney, they would just ban all alcohol on the trail if an event ever occurs. Not one of them is lacking in the needed fortitude to do what is right.

Sounds like your Board lacks conviction and is looking to appease the wrong people your club apparently needs. The ones with commitment, conviction and common sense.

 

[traveltoad]

You and others have stated that the BOD never took any action on various topics. Just because you don't agree with an action taken, does not mean an action wasn't taken. Disciplinary actions do occur, and dealing with them is part of the Board's job.

This is so vague that I don't even know what to say.

If we want to talk specifics, the infamous "Pismo Incident" between Ho and Joe was something the Board did deal with. It was before my time on the Board, so I am not privy to all that occurred, but I know that an Administrative Review was conducted, I know that I was interviewed by members of the Board for my testimony (I was standing near by to Ho at the time of the incident), and I know that the Club President did get involved with Joe in some capacity, but I don't know the extent or the details. Nor do I need to.

If you want to tak specifics, (which you are bringing up) it was Ho and me who where involved in the "Pismo Incident". Our families were sprayed with sand by Joe doing donuts in camp. It was both Ho and I that lobied to have Joe kicked out of SCLR.

And it was my family that had to listen to Joe and his girlfriend have a drunken brawl in his Disco on the edge of camp (where our tent was located as we had a small child) before they left to drive to the condo where they were staying.

I don't remember if you had anything to do with the "Administrative Review" (whatever that is). But Nathan do you remember the private message you sent me saying that Joe was a little rough around the edges but that he was your friend so you would try to straighten him out? As I am no longer an SCLR member I do not have access to my messages there and even if I did, I am sure that you have made sure that it is gone.

What was occurring on the Roverboard at the time of the alcohol discussion was that The Pismo Incident was being tossed in as an example, in what appeared to be an attempt to get Joe kicked out the club. It was old business, that had been dealt with. You can't be punished twice for the same crime. It was a personal attack, unrelated to the alcohol thread. And I did state, several times, that it was an off topic item inappropriate for the thread.

Off topic? It is completely on topic. No one knows if Joe's actions at Pismo were do to drinking during the day. Joe either had no regard for other people or he was drunk and had clouded judgement. According to the current SCLR policy, as long as he is legally sober (and without a means of testing, this must be judged by the person drinking) we are all supposed to laugh it off and wait for you to rehabilitate him.

I'm not going to say that my actions are peerless and above reproach.

Ok, good, we agree on something.

Regarding your definition of a club, mine differs. Mine is broader. I like how Webster's defines it:
"An association of persons for the promotion of some common object, as literature, science, politics, good fellowship, etc.; esp. an association supported by equal assessments or contributions of the members"

This seems pretty consistent with SCLR's statement on their About Us page:
"The Southern California Land Rover club is a non-profit organization that promotes off-highway vehicle oriented outdoor recreation for all Land Rover enthusiasts."

Your definition goes beyond that. It deals with societal aspects. That happens naturally. In any larger group, there will be a subset up people that naturally gravitate to each other, for multiple reasons. That does not invalidate the function and purpose of the broader, larger group. A club is not an appropriate place to play "lifeboat" in my opinion.

As I see it, SCLR serves as a giant mixer. People new to the Land Rover community can join SCLR, participate, and meet people that they naturally gravitate towards. It provides a safe way for new members to explore the abilities of their truck and themselves, it introduces them to local trails and regions, it hopefully imparts a sense of land stewardship and responsible use, and provides a sense of community.

SCLR extends over 6,000 square miles of one of the most densely populated parts of the United States. Not everyone is going to get along, but it's existence and framework allows members to find others that they do get along with.

I have no problem bringing people into the club. If someone has a Land Rover and $60 they are welcome. But as a club we need to show the people new to four wheel off road travel the proper, safe way to do it. If any member(s) show that they are unable or unwilling to adhear to a set of basic guidelines set by the club then they should be kicked out.

You are not providing a "safe way for new members to explore the abilities of their truck and themselves" you are selling people a $60 sticker/T-shirt combo. Why? Because drinking on the trail is not safe, leaving bottles on the side of the trail does not impart anything worthwhile, and by letting the club divide itself into little "clicks" is not a sense of community.

 

[az_max]

One way to describe this thread: